[discuss] [I-coordination] New: How do we dissect Internet governance?--

Sun Jan 5 09:09:37 UTC 2014

My apologies if this is a bit out of sequence. I'm only now getting around
to reading the fascinating document that Alejandro and George pointed us
towards by Baak and Rossini.

And it is excellent and fascinating work. It is quite remarkable I think in
surfacing the pre-occupations and directions that have guided the Internet
Governance discussions including those on most lists, the IGF and even the
academic research.

One can only marvel at the strong measure of coherence and convergence that
the paper demonstrates so clearly and concisely.

But I must say I'm struck in reading that document by (as Sherlock Holmes
would say) the dogs that aren't barking.

Where in the collection of themes/principles is there any reference to
(responding to) the distributional impact of the Internet-in terms of
wealth, power, position, influence; or where are there proposed principles
that deal with the increasing concentration/centralization of power that is
such a characteristic of the current Internet and away from what was a
fundamental element in the design of the Internet its decentralization,
distributed governance and control migrating to the edges; or (and of course
most of these documents are pre-Snowden), where is there any reference that
even hints at the rise of the Surveillance State and what if anything that
can/should be done about this.

So perhaps the convergence and coherence rather than something to be
celebrated should be seen as a problem to be addressed. 

Is this perhaps a reflection of a false and narrow, even artificial
consensus, among those proposing IG principles. Moreover is this "consensus"
something that can truly provide the range of principles that would respond
to Pres. Rousseff's call to "harness the full potential of the Internet"
including in ensuring universality, diversity, democracy, development and
human rights in and through the Internet and its governance.

Mike

From: i-coordination-bounces at nro.net [mailto:i-coordination-bounces at nro.net]
On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 2:25 AM

To: Nigel Hickson
Cc: I-coordination at nro.net
Subject: Re: [I-coordination] New: How do we dissect Internet governance?
[Was: Europe at a tipping point?]

It really worth looking at the paper that Alejandro suggested:

in http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/2013/10/ChartConceptNote_MB_CR.pdf
Jeonghyun Baak and Carolina Rossini present a compilation of principles (for
Internet freedom, mostly). They have also made public tables with a
detailes, issue-by-issue compilation of statements from a very broad set of
organizations. Very high quality work.

George

On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Nigel Hickson wrote:

Nick; great idea; we have some from OECD; Council of Europe and European
Commission. A coordinate input to Brazil would be great! 

From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:45 PM
To: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
Cc: "I-coordination at nro.net" <i-coordination at nro.net>
Subject: Re: [I-coordination] New: How do we dissect Internet governance?
[Was: Europe at a tipping point?]

To Bill's point in the first instance it would be useful to identify those
principles that exist to date and their source and scope. Perhaps 1net could
host a wiki environment or the like where those with knowledge of one or
more could get a list together? 

On 17 Dec 2013, at 18:34, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

Hi George

On Dec 17, 2013, at 6:24 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
wrote:

Bill,

You say: "Do we really have nothing more important to be doing here at this
point than redefining the wheel as just a round thingy?  I thought this list
was supposed to be for coordination of multistakeholder dialogue on Sao
Paulo and beyond, but it seems to alternate between being a troll paradise
and the site of a lot of meandering debates on points that are generally
being addressed more systematically elsewhere.  Or am I alone in this
perception?"

I agree that we need to address points systematically.  Can you provide a
list of systematic points (dare we call them issues?) that it would, in your
view, be useful to discuss?

Well, why not start with the question of principles?  The initiators of the
SP meeting have been saying from the outset they'd like to have a sort of
multistakeholder declaration of principles.  Presumably it'd be helpful if
1net participants were to provide some input on this, and presumably we'd
like it to be more than just nice fluffy words.  Why not discuss the range
of options to make this a useful exercise, and see where there's
cross-stakeholder consensus and where there's not?  It's something concrete
that needs to be done, and they want input by 1 March.

Cheers

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140105/0a2915fa/attachment-0001.html>